STATUTORY

CONSTRUCTION
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
WHAT IS STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION?
- it is the art of seeking the intention of the
legislature in enacting a statute and of applying it to
a given state of facts
Construction distinguished from Interpretation
CONSTRUCTION: the drawing of conclusions
respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression
of the text; has to go outside of the language of the
statute and seek the help of extrinsic aid

INTERPRETATION: the act of finding the true sense and

meaning of words; one who interprets does not get
outside the context of the statute

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LEGAL HERMENEUTICS ?

- a branch of science which establishes the principles
and rules of interpretation and construction of written
laws; the application and of the said principles and rules
is termed as EXEGESIS.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO STUDY STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION?
 Helps prepare the law student for the task of
studying, interpreting and constructing laws in the
various subjects
 Enables the practitioner to prepare his pleadings
and court arguments and to anticipate with
reasonable accuracy what the adversary would use
as defense, objection or counter argument in cases
involving interpretation of contract and/or
construction of statute
 Necessary for the promulgation of future statutes
such that , it may diminish ambiguities in the
wordings of the statute and promotes careful study
of statutes that are in pari materia
 Essential for a counsel to make sure that the
documents that he has prepared reflect the true
intention of the parties in clear and unequivocal
language
 FUNDAMENTAL RULES
“ A statute is the will of the legislature and the fundamental rule
of interpretation to which all others are subordinate is that a
statute is to be expounded according to the intent of them that
made it.”
DOEA STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF
FACT OR OF LAW?

CONSTRUCTION as applied to a document includes two(2) things:

a. first, the meaning of the words and b. their legal effect or the
effect which is to be given to them; the former is a question of fact
while the latter is a question of law

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: WHOSE JOB IS IT?

“ TO DECLARE WHAT THE LAW SHALL BE IS A
LEGISLATIVE POWER, BUT TO DECLARE WHAT THE LAW IS OR
HAS BEEN, IS JUDICIAL.”
Fleete vs. Nickerson 54 L.R.A p 554
HOW IS STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BE
AFFECTED BY THE OVERLAP OF
GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS?
• In principle, the three branches of
the government , namely, the
Executive branch, Legislative and the
Judicial branch, are co-equal
branches of government with
separate and distinct functions; in
reality, however , these functions do
not fit into separate airtight
compartments, but often overlap
DIAGRAM I. SPHERES THAT OVERLAP

Legislative

1 3
Executive
2 Judicial

Area 1 is the overlap between the executive and the legislative

functions. This area is the Rule-making Power of the executive
DIAGRAM 2

If the exercise of this rule-making power exceeds the

legislative grant , judiciary will strike it out as ultra-vires

Executive
1 Legislative
DIAGRAM 3

Area 2A is the power granted to the Administrative agency to perform

Quasi-Judicial functions; Area 2B is referred to as the Executive
Construction (executive interpretation)

Executive
2A

2B
Judicial
 DIAGRAM 4

The third area of the overlap is the primary concern of the study
of Statutory Construction (overlap between the judicial and
legislative)

Legislative 3
Judicial

Within the area between judicial and executive (3) , Art 9 of the Civil Code referred to it
as “those which judges may legislate” Art. 9 provides that “No judges or Court shall
decline to render judgment by reason of silence, obscurity or insufficiency of law.”
Beyond Area 3, this will be amounting to Judicial Legislation and which may be
referred to as judicial tyranny.
 BASIC RULES ON STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION
• The legislature cannot declare that the statute it has
passed shall be so construed as not to violate a
constitutional inhibition. Endencia vs. David 93 Phil 696
• Courts should respect the contemporaneous construction of
a statute by the executive officers who enforce it.
Orencia vs. Enrile, 55 SCRA 50
• The intention of the legislature must be ascertained and
given weight. People vs. Concepcion, 44 Phil. 126
• Courts should not incorporate matters not provided in the
law by judicial ruling. Sy Kiong vs. Sarmiento, 90 Phil. 434

SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES ON

CONSTRUCTION
Construction is resorted to only where the language is
ambiguous.
Ambiguity is defined as doubtfulness, doubleness in
meaning or indistinctness, or uncertainty of meaning of the
expression used in a written instrument.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION NOT MANDATORY UPON THE COURTS

• It serves as mere suggestions

• It has been declared that a long and uniform construction
given on a statute amounts to positive law
• In our jurisdiction, the judicial decisions interpreting the
laws or Constitution form part of our legal system
SUBJECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
1. CONSTITUTION
2. STATUTES
3. RESOLUTIONS
4. ORDINANCES
WHAT IS THE CARDINAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ?
- to ascertain the intention and meaning of the legislature for the
purpose of giving effect thereto . Daza vs. Villaroman, 69 Phil
12
 TOPIC OUTLINE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OR
JUDICIAL LEGISLATION
LITERAL CONSTRUCTION
EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION
SUBJECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF
STATUTES
PARTICULAR LATIN RULES
CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND
PHRASES
SPECIAL OR GENERAL (LAW)
EXTERNAL AIDS
PRESUMPTIONS
REPEALS
CASES TO STUDY :

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
a. Definition
• Caltex (Philippines) Inc. vs. Palomar 18 SCRA 247

b. Nature of the Rules in Statutory Construction

- PCFI vs. NTC and PLDT 125 SCRA 854 (1983)
131 SCRA 200 (1984)

c. Rule on Ambiguity
• - NFI vs. EISMA 127 SCRA 419
• - Dao-Ang Vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas
159 SCRA 369

d. On Legislative Interpretation
• - Endencia vs. David 93 Phil. 696
e. On Executive Construction

• -Ramos vs. CIR

• GR. No. L-22753, December 18, 1967
• - PAFLU vs. BLR 72 SCRA 396
• -PAWU vs, NLRC 106 SCRA 444
• -IBAA Employees’ Union vs. Inciong 132 SCRA 663
• -Chartered Bank Employees’ Association vs. Ople,
138 SCRA 273
• -Orencia vs. Enrile 55 SCRA 580

f. On Judicial Interpretation

• - Sy Kiong vs. Sarmiento, 90 Phil. 434

• - Floresca vs. Philex Mining, 135 SCRA 142

g. Legislative Intent

• - Aisporna vs. CA and People, 113 SCRA 459

• -China Bank vs. Ortega 49 SCRA 355
• - Prasnik vs. Republic 98 Phil. 665
• -People vs. Concepcion 44 Phil 126
• -De Jesus vs. City of Manila 29 Phil. 73
• - Regalado vs. Yulo 61 Phil 173
h. Literal Construction
 - Abellana vs. Marave 57 SCRA 106
 - IBAA Employees’ Union vs. Inciong 132 SCRA 663 or
 Chartered Bank Employee’s Association vs. Ople
138 SCRA 273

SUBJECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
a. Constitution/Statute
 - Perfecto vs. Meer 85 Phil. 552 or
 - Endencia vs. David 93 Phil. 696
 - NITAFAN vs. CIR 152 SCRA 284
 - Aglipay vs. Ruiz 64 Phil. 201 (Preamble)
 - Ayson vs. Provincial Board 39 Phil. 931 (One subject bill)
 - Sumulong vs. COMELEC 73 Phil. 257
 (Practical rather than Technical
 Construction of Subject)
 - People vs. Echavez 95 SCRA 663 (Whereas Clause)
b. Publication Requirement
 - Tanada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
 Tanada vs. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
c. Ordinance
 -Primicias vs. Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan
 93 SCRA 462
Interpretation of Specific Types of Statutes
a. Penal Statutes
 - Us. Vs. Abad Santos 36 Phil. 243 or
 People vs Purisima 86 SCRA 542
b. Tax Laws
 - Serfino vs. Court of Tax Appeals 154 SCRA 19
c. Labor Laws
 Manahan vs. Employment Compensation Commission
104 SCRA 198
- Villavert vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission
110 SCRA 233
d. Insurance Law
 Ty vs. First National Surety and Assurance Co.,Inc.
1 SCRA 1324
 Panaton vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.
2 CA Report 783
e. Corporate Law
 Home Insurance Co., vs. Eastern Shipping
Lines 123 SCRA 425 (1983)

f. Naturalization law
 - Co vs. republic 108 Phil. 265
 - Velasco vs. Republic 108 Phil. 234
 - Lee Cho vs. Republic 106 Phil. 775

g. Agrarian Reform Laws

 - Guerrero vs. CA 142 SCRA 136 (1986)

h. Rules of Court
 Bello vs. CA 56 SCRA 509
 Lacsamana vs. IAC 143 SCRA 643 (1986)
 Abellana vs. Marave 57 SCRA 106
i. Expropriation Law/Right of Eminent Domain
 City of Manila vs. Chinese Community
40 Phil 448

j. Debtor Protection Laws

 Javellana vs. Mirasol 40 Phil 761

k. Election Laws
 Villanueva vs. COMELEC 140 SCRA 352
(1985)

l. Wills
 Tampoy vs. Alberastine 107 Phil. 100
PARTICULAR RULES ON CONSTRUCTION (Latin Maxims)

a. VERBA LEGIS
 IBAA Employees’ Union vs. Inciong
 132 SCRA 663

b. RATIO LEGIS
 Villanueva vs. COMELEC (dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino)
140 SCRA 353, 359

c. MENS LEGISLATORES
- Prasnik vs. Republic 98 Phil. 665
 Matabuena vs. Cervantes 38 SCRA 284

d. DURA LEX SED LEX

 -People vs. Macarandang 106 Phil. 715
 -People vs. Mapa 20 SCRA 1164
 -People vs. Santayana 74 SCRA 25
e. EXPRESSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

 - Republic vs. Estenzo 99 SCRA 651

 -Acosta vs. Flor 5 Phil 18

f. EJUSDEM GENERIS

 Mutuc vs. COMELEC 36 SCRA 228

 Gotiaco vs. Union Insurance Society of Canilon 40 Phil. 40
 People vs. Echavez 95 SCRA 663
 US vs. Sto . Nino 13 Phil. 141
 -Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs Social Security System 1
SCRA 10

g. CASUS OMISSUS

 - People vs. Manantan 5 SCRA 684

 - Lopez vs. CA 100 Phil. 850

h. NOSCITUR A SOCIIS

 Sanciangco vs. Rono 137 SCRA 671

 Caltex (Phil) vs. Palomar 18 SCRA 247
 REFERENCES:
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

BY: RUBEN E. AGPALO

JOSE JESUS G. LAUREL

RUPERTO MARTIN
END OF LECTURE